WHERE ALIGNMENT BREAKS: A DOCUMENT-BASED EVALUATION OF CONSTRUCTIVE ALIGNMENT IN A SEQUENCED EFL READING CURRICULUM

Abstract

Quality assurance in Indonesian higher education is enacted largely through course documents, yet the internal coherence of those documents is rarely audited once they have been approved. This study evaluated constructive alignment across four sequenced Reading courses in an undergraduate English Language Education programme at an Indonesian university. Using a qualitative evaluative design based on document analysis, the study examined the programme curriculum, five semester lesson plans covering the four courses, and one draft instructional module. Twenty-eight units of analysis were coded on three component pairings using a three-level alignment rubric, producing 84 coding decisions and a set of descriptive alignment indices. A gap in stated proficiency level was the clearest finding: mapped against CEFR reading descriptors, the four courses indicated levels B1, B1, B2, and B1 against a programme learning outcome targeting C1, and the sequence did not rise, since the first two courses showed no increase in demand and the final course indicated a lower level than the course preceding it. Mean alignment indices fell in the moderate band for all four courses, ranging from 60.0% to 70.4%, and declined consistently from objectives-to-materials, through objectives-to-planned-implementation, to objectives-to-assessment, which was rated low in every course and reached 27.8% in one. Document verification further revealed that the lesson plan for the first course was textually near-identical to that of the second, that two conflicting versions of one lesson plan were in circulation, and that no assessment instruments or scoring rubrics existed for any course. Because these weaknesses originate in lesson plans drafted in isolation by individual convenors, the study recommends cross-course collaborative design, in which the lesson plans of a related course sequence are drafted and revised together in a single scheduled session and read against one another and against the curriculum, supported by content-based rather than checklist-based internal document audit.